Truth101

questioner

"The problem with our health care system is not who is paying. The problem is it is too expensive." We've had our kids in other countries (not with universal healthcare) with doctors who trained in the US who treated them for a ruptured Achilles's tendon, for childbirth, for emergencies needing a pediatric cardiologist, etc. (And they were in top hospitals in capital cities) Cost at least 4 times less than here, usually much more than that.

Kozy62

That's correct, concerned. The original idea behind a law called the affordable care act was to make healthcare less expensive...it turned into a monster. And, yes, prescription drugs are crazy expensive and don't need to be.

So, what to do about it? Should the government just force a monster on us all or should the government just give up, or maybe the government should focus on the real problems? The task is daunting...and of course made worse due to the existing law and the politics involved.

Kozy62

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said Tuesday that any GOP move was a nonstarter.

"The president's been clear. I've been clear. Efforts to either defund or delay the Affordable Care Act are unacceptable," Lew told the Economic Club of Washington. "That is not a path towards something that can ultimately be signed into law." The President's legacy is far too important and it wouldn't matter if 100% of the American people didn't want this law...it will be the law and it will happen!

Many Democrats have begun to see this as political and are wanting to find ways to make significant changes, even joining with Republicans to delay the entire program.

concerned

The problem with our health care system is not who is paying. The problem is it is too expensive. An example is I have read where our cost for some commonly prescribed drugs that cost over $100 you can buy for under $10 in some other countries. Some of the more common procedures are way more expensive here than in other countries. We are pushing 20% Of the GNP that is spent on health care. Some believe Obama care is going to push it over that figure.

However, while Sebelius's claim sounds like a sure thing ("will" get covered,) the accompanying graphic is somewhat less unequivocal, employing the phrase "can"get covered. But the truth is even one additional step removed. The HHS press release, which Sebelius refers to but does not link to, reads as follows [emphasis added]:

A new report released today by the Department of Health and Human Services shows that 56%, or nearly six in ten of the people who don’t have health insurance today may be able to get coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace for less than $100 per month...maybe fewer at a larger price?

In the end, only the Calif. Nurses Assoc. did not back the federation’s resolution calling on Obama to either protect multi-employer plans or for Congress to amend the law & that was because it wasn’t radical enough.

Their pleas did not move Obama. In a meeting with labor leaders Friday, W.H. admin. officials, including Labor Sec. Tom Perez, flatly turned down their request to extend tax credits to offset the higher costs created by Obamacare.

That’s tough luck for the union leaders & even tougher luck for the people they purportedly represent. The rank & file might want to ask their leaders some hard questions.

Kozy62

Healthcare costs in the United States are like a tapeworm eating at our economic body. Those words come from famed investor Warren Buffett, who said he would scrap Obamacare and start all over. . . . "What we have now is untenable over time," said Buffett, an early supporter of President Obama. "That kind of a cost compared to the rest of the world is really like a tapeworm eating, you know, at our economic body." Buffett does not believe that providing insurance for everyone is the first step to take in correcting our nation's healthcare system. "Attack the costs first, and then worry about expanding coverage," he said. "I would much rather see another plan that really attacks costs. And I think that's what the American public wants to see. I mean, the American public is not behind this bill."

Kozy62

ObamaCare has lacked broad public support from its inception in 2009, when there were not enough lawmakers who were willing to listen to their constituents to stop it from being enacted. The Republican House majority is because of ObamaCare, not the other way around.

When Obama signed the law more than 3 years ago, supporters predicted Americans would embrace it as some of the most popular provisions went into effect. But that turnaround in public opinion hasn't happened & won't.

In the USA Today poll (which is of adults, not registered voters), only 26% strongly approve of ObamaCare; 41% strongly disapprove. Total disapproval is 53%.The same proportion disapprove of the way Obama is handling health care policy.

rpmwwe

rpmwwe

The system is very much broken. Out of one side of their mouths they will say disarming a law abiding citizen is not a violation of rights, and out of the other side of their mouths they will say requiring doctors and mental health professionals to report people's mental health problems in order to prevent those people from acquiring firearms is a violation of rights. I get the feeling that they either really don't want to solve the problem, or they actually want to solve a problem that is different from the problem they are telling you about.

rpmwwe

"And if you'd check 75% of the NRA membership was in favor of background chk's "

Yes, a lot of the NRA's membership has no problem with the background checks. What they had a problem with was all the other garbage Feinstein and friends were trying to get ramrodded through. When the dust settled, they got nothing! They went too far and blew it. They had a perfect opportunity to fix the background check issues (which, by the way, are bureaucratic problems and not NRA induced) and they had a perfect opportunity to address the problem of being unable to identify persons with known mental health issues prior to transfer.

rpmwwe

Perhaps the NRA wouldn't have the operating cash it does if it wasn't funded by so many Americans who want the NRA to represent them and exert their will. The firearms industry alone couldn't pour that much money into the NRA's war chest. Its just not that big.

The NRA has a long standing strategy of opposing any and all gun legislation. The point is not to have no regulation, but to be in a better position to negotiate. Trying to negotiate after capitulation is never effective.

Kozy62

I'm not going to repeat facts about the pipeline b/c you just refuse to listen to anything that's true. Anybody can pick and choose...I just listed the congressional record of legislation. I'm never sure where you are getting your stuff...MSNBC?